Not all corruption involves under-the-table cash envelopes or missing funds. Some of it hides in plain sight – in government projects that are fully-funded, proudly inaugurated, and loudly celebrated. Yet, these projects quietly fail to deliver real value to the public.
Economists call these White Elephants.
For the purpose of this discussion on public spending and governance, we will use the Merriam-Webster definition of a “property requiring much care and expense and yielding little profit.”
According to this extensive blog entry, the term originated from actual white elephants in Southeast Asia. While normal elephants served as beasts of burden, white elephants were sacred to Buddhists—so rare and valuable that only kings could own them.
The problem? Elephants are costly to maintain, and a sacred white elephant cannot be put to work. Resources are poured into it with no economic return. Instead, it exists purely for status and prestige.
The Link Between White Elephants and Public Sector Corruption
So what’s the link between White Elephants and corruption in public spending?
A White Elephant Project is not illegal by definition. It is often built exactly as planned. The core problem is that it absorbs significant public resources while producing low social and economic returns for citizens.
In the Philippines, these projects usually take the form of “Trophy Infrastructure” – grand sports complexes, ornate arches, oversized convention centers, or landmark facilities built to showcase political influence rather than address urgent community needs.
The damage they cause is not immediate theft, but the distortion of public spending priorities and the immense fiscal strain they contribute.
The “classic” White Elephant Project in the Philippines is the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). This $2.3 billion project was completed in the 80s, but it was never operated. This is a textbook “white elephant.” Its economic rationale collapsed under layers of political, technical, and fiscal problems.
Scholarly analysis points to the BNPP as a warning about how political objectives can trump sound economic planning. The cost of this megaproject contributed immense fiscal strain to the Philippines. Meanwhile, the reality is that White Elephant Projects have existed in the country for decades already.
Underutilized Public Projects: The Costly Pattern
Across the country, the pattern is familiar. Local officials push for highly visible projects in their districts. These are facilities that photograph well, generate ribbon-cutting moments, and signal “development.” Yet, this happens even when basic services remain lacking.
Over the years, the Philippines has seen repeated reports of large public projects that remain idle, underutilized, or deliver limited public benefit – even after significant spending:
- Cebu Facilities: Three infrastructure facilities worth ₱50.4 million in Cebu have remained unused for years after completion, according to the Commission on Audit (COA).
- Flagged State Facilities: Three state facilities built for about ₱2 billion were flagged as underutilized, with poor maintenance and low operational use noted by state auditors.
- DPWH Projects: The COA has also found hundreds of infrastructure projects implemented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) as “unusable or idle,” with technical deficiencies resulting in losses of at least ₱6.45 billion due to improper execution.
These are just the reported ones. There exist oversized sports complexes in provinces without sustained athletic programs. There are convention centers that sit idle outside of occasional events. In addition, tourism infrastructure is built without clear demand or long-term operating plans.
Prioritizing Political Legacy Over Public Value
White Elephant Projects fail to generate the highest potential social and economic returns. Instead of classrooms, sanitation systems, health facilities, or learning materials, some provinces get basketball courts or ornamental arches and monuments. These cost hundreds of millions of pesos.
This practice distorts public spending in three critical ways:
- Lowered Productivity of Public Capital: A sports complex used a few times a year does not have the same social impact as funding for schools or rural health units that serve thousands annually.
- Increased Maintenance and Operating Budgets: Once built, these projects still require staffing, utilities, and upkeep, diverting funds from essential services. In fact, upkeep costs are often the exact reason the whole thing is abandoned in the first place.
- Sends the Wrong Policy Signal: When investment choices appear driven by prestige rather than impact, it undermines public confidence and trust on institutions and those in charge.
White Elephant spending is not illegal, and can arise entirely within formal processes. What’s damaging is that the decision-makers of these types of projects prioritize political legacy over public value.
The Real Cost of “Useless” White Elephants
What our country needs is more disciplined prioritization in government spending. If the goal is long-term growth, resilience, and inclusive development, then public spending must favor what quietly works over what loudly impresses.
- Classrooms outperform arches.
- Clinics outperform monuments.
- Clean water systems outperform ceremonial plazas.
White Elephant Projects may look like progress, but economically, they are weight – not momentum. And the cost is not just paid in pesos, but in lost opportunities for development.
This is something to think about and be mindful of whenever we see something being constructed in our locales. Do they actually provide value to our communities, or are they as flashy and as useless as a White Elephant? These projects may be nice to look at but don’t really do anything of substance.